If you live in a non-swing state, like California, not moving to a swing state is effectively a vote for whoever wins.
Voting in california and not voting in california are statistically identical, so if you don't move to a swing state, you're just voting for whoever wins, right?
The electoral college doesn't even have to vote for what their state wanted. They can go rogue, and possibly end up with criminal charges in a few states, but the vote still stands.
Until an election is decided by rogue delegates, this is a frivolous point.
If it ever does happen, it makes the whole exercising of voting even more useless than it already is for states like CA, the vote truly means nothing as opposed to just being symbolically useless.
So, the EC absolutely matters, and it’ll matter right up until it doesn’t. At which point, who tf cares?
Because voting third party is also a vote for whoever wins, using this logic. Libertarians, Green, etc party voters constantly get accosted over this.
You have two top candidates, by voting for a third party you are deferring to the popular vote on the top two and 'subtracting' a vote from your favorite of the top two.
Well, it is a vote for whoever wins their state. I know several people who didn’t vote back in my home state because the outcome for that state was already a given. The current way the electoral college works effectively disenfranchises people living in “solid” D or R states.
Yes, I know that there are down ballot races on the same day that matter, but many don’t, for the same or similar reasons. We need elections that let everyone’s vote matter. Things like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, working to end gerrymandering, and open primaries would all be helpful reforms in different ways.
Voting in california and not voting in california are statistically identical, so if you don't move to a swing state, you're just voting for whoever wins, right?